Gowdy Heard About Hillary’s Huge Trouble, And His Response Is One She’ll Hate…

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, responded to the news that Hillary Clinton plans to turn over her email server to the Justice Department, in response to an investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information by the former secretary of state.

The move by the Bureau comes following the reports that the Intelligence Community’s Inspector General discovered four classified documents, to date, among those released by Clinton–two of which are “top secret,” the highest security classification.

As reported by Western Journalism, Clinton stated during a press conference in March: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

Clinton’s campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said that “She directed her team to give her e-mail server that was used during her tenure as secretary to the Department of Justice, as well as a thumb drive containing copies of her e-mails already provided to the State Department.” Merrill added: “She pledged to cooperate with the government’s security inquiry, and if there are more questions, we will continue to address them.”

Fox News’ Bill Hemmer asked Gowdy on Wednesday morning if he expected full cooperation from Clinton now. “It’s hard not to laugh when I hear that,” Gowdy responded. “I know he’s in the business of being paid to say absurd things, but if that really was his intent and her intent, why did they set up this unprecedented email arrangement?”

“Why did she keep the emails for 20 months after she left the Department of State?” the congressman continued. “She did not turn them over then. Why did she delete emails after 20 months? Did all of the sudden she decide after 20 months, ‘This is too burdensome for me to keep a bunch of emails on my server, so let me not only delete them, but wipe the server clean.’

“If she were interested in cooperation, she would not have done any of the things she has done to date. This is not about cooperation. This is not about convenience. It’s about control. She wanted to control access to the public record. And she also got away with it, but she didn’t,” said Gowdy.

Hemmer asked Gowdy if Clinton’s alleged mishandling of classified information fit the same category as that for which Gen. David Petraeus was prosecuted and convicted.

“The same rules ought to apply irrespective of their station in life. So I am going to have to count on the [FBI] and [its director] Jim Comey, who has a reputation for evenhandedness and fairness. The same folks who investigated and prosecuted Gen. Petraeus are looking into the current allegations with respect to classified information. If the facts are the same, I would expect the result to be the same,” he replied.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano believes Clinton’s breach is far more serious than Petraeus’. He said: “In his case it was ‘confidential’ materials, which is the lowest level of classification. In her case it is ‘top secret’, which is the highest level of classification.” In the case of Petraeus, the documents were in his home, while Clinton’s were on her personal server, making them vulnerable to hacking.

Gowdy released a statement Tuesday highlighting the severity of the former secretary of state’s actions. “This is a serious national security issue, and the seriousness of it should transcend normal, partisan politics.”

h/t: TheBlaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Hillary’s ‘Worst Political Nightmare’ – Judge Nap Explains Bombshell Development

Hillary Clinton’s attempt to cover her tracks, avoid legal jeopardy, and prevent further damage to her political aspirations has taken a major turn. A number of news organizations, including Fox News, are now reporting that Clinton has handed over to federal investigators in the Justice Department her personal email server.

The device at the center of the emailgate scandal that once was housed in Clinton’s personal residence will now, reportedly, be examined by forensics experts who may be able to recover the tens-of-thousands of so-called “personal” emails the former secretary of state said she deleted. In addition to the server, at least one thumb drive containing Clinton emails with potentially classified government secrets has been surrendered to investigators by Hillary’s attorney.

Meantime, as Fox News notes, Hillary’s oft-repeated assertion that she never sent or received classified materials through her privately managed email setup has taken another big hit. “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said two emails that traversed Clinton’s personal system were deemed ‘Top Secret, Sensitive Compartmented Information’ — a rating that is among the government’s highest classifications,” reports Fox News.

The cable network’s Chief Judicial Analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, has just underscored the great importance of the latest developments in the Democrat presidential hopeful’s email scandal. On Fox and Friends Wednesday morning, Judge Napolitano called the Justice Department’s possession of the controversial server Hillary’s “worst political nightmare” as well as a “grave legal problem” that could sink the former first lady in serious hot water.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch Judge Napolitano’s segment on Fox and Friends in which he explains how the Clinton email situation has now grown much worse for the woman who would be president.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Federal Judge Uses 4 Explosive Words In Order That Could Doom Hillary

“Mrs. Clinton should be treated like anyone else who is apparently — I’ll take that back — obviously violating the law.” That’s what Judge Andrew Napolitano told Megyn Kelly on her Fox News show Monday night. The network’s judicial analyst was referring to the former secretary of state’s email practices that remain highly controversial as lawyers wrestle over the release of Mrs. Clinton’s official communications.

During a segment on The Kelly File, Judge Napolitano explained why a just-issued order from a federal judge could present serious legal jeopardy for the Democrat frontrunner in the 2016 presidential contest, as well as for two of her closest aides when Hillary headed the State Department. The four words that the judge cited in that court order that are so extraordinary and potentially explosive are, “under penalty of perjury.”

“I cannot emphasize to you too much the significance of this federal judge — appointed to the bench by her husband — using the phrase, ‘under penalty of perjury,’ reminding her for the first time, Mrs. Clinton, you will be under oath.”

Judge Napolitano also noted that when the government suspected that Gen. David Petraeus, the disgraced former head of the CIA, kept secure documents in his home, the FBI raided it. As far as we know, no such raid has occurred in Hillary’s home where her private email server was kept. That, despite the fact that the government doesn’t suspect she has secure documents, it’s known that she did.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch The Kelly File segment during which Judge Napolitano laid out the case that Hillary Clinton could face a very dicey legal predicament when she has to make a major declaration to a frustrated federal judge by the end of this week.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Judge Napolitano Reveals One Thing EVERY Candidate Should Learn From Trump

Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano recently discussed Donald Trump’s headline-grabbing presidential campaign with the panelists on Outnumbered.

Acknowledging he knows Trump “professionally and personally,” Napolitano shared why he is happy the brash billionaire has made a mark in the GOP primary.

“I disagree with him on many issues,” he admitted, “but I am thrilled he’s in the race. I love the way he’s stirring the pot. I love the way he challenges the establishment, I love the way he says what he thinks.”

Responding to a concurrent discussion of primary candidate Marco Rubio, Napolitano shared his analysis. Some on the panel previously noted Rubio was an early favorite who has since failed to attract the level of support some predicted.

“If Marco Rubio had said exactly what he thought, as [panelist] Andrea [Tantaros] suggested,” he said, “he’d be higher in the polls.”

Napolitano insisted that the rest of the Republican field can “take a lesson from the Donald.”

Though others on the panel held an objectively different view of the candidate, participants in the discussion generally agreed that a significant percentage of Republican voters are looking for a candidate willing to take the fight to the party’s establishment wing.

While Trump’s unfavorable rating remains high, in large part due to his divisive rhetoric, he also continues to enjoy a comfortable polling lead for much the same reason.

Is Trump’s candidacy a boon or a distraction for the Republican party? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Justice Scalia Shreds The Supreme Court’s Marriage Ruling

On America’s Newsroom Friday, Fox News’ senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, offered a pointed analysis of Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent on the same-sex marriage Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Obergefell v. Hodges Friday to legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states. “The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion for the court.

Napolitano told Fox News correspondent Leland Vittert shortly after the ruling that “Five unelected black robed judges have taken over the government, have rewritten an institution that’s 4,000 years old, an institution that relies on popular consensus and ancient tradition and there is no authority whatsoever in the Constitution for them to do so.”

The former Bergen County, N.J., superior court judge read some of Scalia’s dissent on air:

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.” With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

The veteran justice argued the majority’s decision relates to the court’s disconnection with the rest of the country. Scalia noted that out of the nine justices sitting on the Supreme Court, eight studied at Harvard or Yale Law School, and four of the nine are New York City natives (Scalia, born in Trenton, N.J., grew up in Queens and went to high school in Manhattan). “Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between,” Scalia wrote. “Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count).”

Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a
constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

Scalia, who himself is Catholic and has nine children, including one son who is a priest, called the majority opinion “egotistic.”

“It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so,” Scalia wrote. “Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent.”

“The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.” (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.)

What do you think of Justice Scalia’s dissent? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth